Obama releases secret Bush anti-terror memos

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 03, 2009 7:28 AM GMT
    "...The conclusion, reiterated in page after page of documents, was that the president had broad authority to set aside constitutional rights.

    Fourth Amendment protections against unwarranted search and seizure, for instance, did not apply in the United States as long as the president was combatting terrorism, the Justice Department said in an Oct. 23, 2001, memo.

    "First Amendment speech and press rights may also be subordinated to the overriding need to wage war successfully," Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo wrote, adding later: "The current campaign against terrorism may require even broader exercises of federal power domestically."... "

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090303/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/terror_memos


    I hope this is just the beginning...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 03, 2009 8:23 AM GMT
    I hope so too....Well with the new attorney general, thinks are certainly a bit better than the likes of John Yoo...and at least this guy does not need a subpoena from Congress to speak to the press, much less the American people.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 03, 2009 9:23 AM GMT
    This is great and all, but I think people would do well to reading some of Glenn Greenwald's most recent columns. The state of the Obama Justice Department's actions is rather poor. They have been making some arguments that are extremely reminiscent of the Bush Justice Department.

    Glenn Greenwald
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Mar 03, 2009 1:08 PM GMT
    Caslon9000 quoted,

    "'Fourth Amendment protections against unwarranted search and seizure, for instance, did not apply in the United States as long as the president was combatting terrorism, the Justice Department said in an Oct. 23, 2001, memo.'"



    Although the Justice Department is a part of the Judicial Branch, I think this interpretation of the President's powers are strictly reserved for the Supreme Court. There's a balance-of-power problem when a Presidential appointee decides how much slack the President should get in combatting terrorism. It's like an employee giving business advice to his boss.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 03, 2009 1:15 PM GMT
    Things are about to get interesting in this country...

    Oh how I love being a historian
  • Sayrnas

    Posts: 847

    Mar 03, 2009 3:08 PM GMT
    Where is the pop corn...This craps getting good like the first season of heroes!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 03, 2009 5:55 PM GMT
    coolarmydude saidCaslon9000 quoted,

    "'Fourth Amendment protections against unwarranted search and seizure, for instance, did not apply in the United States as long as the president was combatting terrorism, the Justice Department said in an Oct. 23, 2001, memo.'"



    Although the Justice Department is a part of the Judicial Branch, I think this interpretation of the President's powers are strictly reserved for the Supreme Court. There's a balance-of-power problem when a Presidential appointee decides how much slack the President should get in combatting terrorism. It's like an employee giving business advice to his boss.


    The Justice Department reports to the US Attorney General (who is appointed by The President) and is part of the Executive Branch, not the Judicial Branch.
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Mar 03, 2009 10:59 PM GMT
    chrisatbc said, "The Justice Department reports to the US Attorney General (who is appointed by The President) and is part of the Executive Branch, not the Judicial Branch."

    That's an oops on my part. Originally, the Office of the Attorney General was created by a Judiciary Act and changed to the Executive Branch by a Congressional Act of 1870.

    But it still supports my point that interpretation of the law should be strictly reserved for the Supreme Court.
  • EricLA

    Posts: 3461

    Mar 03, 2009 11:11 PM GMT
    Chewey_Delt saidThis is great and all, but I think people would do well to reading some of Glenn Greenwald's most recent columns. The state of the Obama Justice Department's actions is rather poor. They have been making some arguments that are extremely reminiscent of the Bush Justice Department.

    Glenn Greenwald


    Chewey, I agree that Obama isn't off the hook. He certainly hasn't rejected all of Bush's ways of governance, including "signing statements" like Bush did, exempting the Executive Branch from the law he was signing

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signing_statement

    Let's remember that though Lincoln is one of Obama's heroes, Lincoln suspended protections such as habeas corpus during the Civil War.

    Obama is an improvement over Bush, but I don't approve of everything he's doing.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 03, 2009 11:18 PM GMT
    How soon people forget how "New York" pressured everybody and every agency for a response to 911. Out here in Cali we were like, live with it. So NY got the response they wanted from Cheney ...so live with that too.
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Mar 03, 2009 11:30 PM GMT
    EricLA said, "Let's remember that though Lincoln is one of Obama's heroes, Lincoln suspended protections such as habeas corpus during the Civil War.

    Obama is an improvement over Bush, but I don't approve of everything he's doing. "


    I agree. My favorite president is FDR, but if I was alive during his presidency, I would have been up in arms with some of the things he did.


    Another aspect of why I detest Bush for his power hold, is that I largely suspect that his interests, or agenda, was not about the country, but something egregious.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 03, 2009 11:38 PM GMT
    I couldn't agree with coolarmydude more. Every one seems to forget that Lincoln did suspend habeas corpus and obama does seem to be overwhelmed but only time will tell.

    Interesting that Coolarmy brings up FDR since there was always suspicians that he knew pearl harbor was comming and let it happen. I've often wondered if the same was true with Bush regarding 9/11. It sure gave his presidency a boost and got him elected a second time
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Mar 03, 2009 11:54 PM GMT
    How many breeches of the Constitution and of International Law does this group of International Criminals have to do before somebody in the proper place says ......

    Hey, you think we should prosecute these guys? icon_confused.gif